It was the Democrat speaking between Cruz and Rubio who offered more specifics for what he believes will fuel that growth.

Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell is a co-chairman of the Fix the Debt campaign founded by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the co-chairs of President Obama’s deficit reduction commission who started their own campaign after Obama brushed aside their plan that called for spending cuts, tax hikes and entitlement reform.

“By 2040, if we do nothing, our debt will be 200 percent of our GDP — the time to fix it is now,” Rendell told the breakfast crowd.

In 10 years, he added, three-quarters of the federal budget “will be consumed by mandatory spending, mostly entitlements” with only 25 percent for all domestic discretionary spending and defense.

“We need to do something big; we can’t nibble at the edges,” Rendell said.

He advocated repealing sequestration, giving Congress a “menu” of reform options and implementing the Buffett Rule to put a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than $1 million per year. “Will the Buffett Rule affect anyone who works in this restaurant?” he asked.

While advocating the tax hikes Obama championed in 2011, Rendell veered the other way when he stressed “entitlement programs have to change…we Dems have to face up to it.” He singled out Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) as someone who is stubbornly refusing to budge on entitlements to the detriment of the country’s economic future.

“Republicans have to get out of this idea that it’s evil to raise revenue,” the former governor continued. “It isn’t evil — Reagan did it 11 times.”

“If you harden those positions we won’t fix the debt… we will become another Greece,” he said of current stances of Dems and the GOP.

Rendell proposed piping a song into Congress on a loop track like “It’s a Small World” at Disneyland: “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” by the Rolling Stones.

“But if you try, you might get what you need,” he added.

Rubio challenged Rendell’s assertion that the cooperation between Dems and the White House found in the Reagan era was possible today.

“There’s a difference between then and now,” Rubio said, adding the two political parties back then shared “some commonality of philosophical vision” that could aid in reaching consensus on a policy disagreement.

Concerned Veterans for America CEO Pete Hegseth stressed that consensus can be reached by what can seem like different philosophies on defense spending.

Bridget Johnson is a veteran journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News.
She is an NPR contributor and has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.

I read the article and then I re-read it and, oddly, I didn't see any mention of immigration. Are you saying that Marco Rubio spoke about economic growth and didn't mention his Gang of Eight bill which he said would be a blessing to our economy? How very strange. Why wouldn't he mention that?

Sorry, but every time I see "Rubio" I am oddly compelled to say "Amnesty." I really don't want to listen to him anymore. Please, Marco, get a job as an immigration lawyer and get illegal aliens into the country in your own little way, not with a grand stroke of subversion against America.

Rubeo hanging with The Honorable Senator Ted Cruz; isn't going to shine the tarnish from his fading star. Rubeo's a RINO, easily manipulated and without principle. Rubeo should listen to The Honorable Ted Cruz's father talk on you tube. Maybe it will help him grow a pair, though after his becoming a swish to Chuckie and McShame, it won't diminish the disdain he has acquired, in my eyes.

if Marco Rubio is "the future of the GOP", then the GOP is in trouble. Every time I see his name, the question that comes to mind is "what will he be for today?" The man is just another career politician, his sole claim to anything being the origin of his surname. Like too many Repubs, he talked a good game about smaller govt, then does nothing to that end. At least Dems are honest enough to tell you they want to grow the state.

I read the article and then I re-read it and, oddly, I didn't see any mention of immigration. Are you saying that Marco Rubio spoke about economic growth and didn't mention his Gang of Eight bill which he said would be a blessing to our economy? How very strange. Why wouldn't he mention that?

The names "Rubio" and "Cruz" should not be uttered in the same breath. For obvious reasons. Which Ms. Johnson knows all too well. Rubio fouled himself. Poor fool. Maybe the Democrats will embrace him, but then, I don't think they need him beyond "comprehensive (illegal) immigration reform" -- eh?

Sorry, but every time I see "Rubio" I am oddly compelled to say "Amnesty." I really don't want to listen to him anymore. Please, Marco, get a job as an immigration lawyer and get illegal aliens into the country in your own little way, not with a grand stroke of subversion against America.

I believe both Reagan and W raised revenue to the treasury by decreasing tax rates, something NO DEMOCRAT would ever sign up to today. I'm sick of the GOP bringing Rendell around. He is not a nice guy. He is part of the cancer of statism that must be excised to save the country.

Why Rendell is a great friend to conservatives, he is fair and balanced, he wants conservatives to win more elections, he wants to sell the strategy of raising taxes and Congress cutting wasteful government programs that President Obama can then veto. Rendell, Rendell? Isn't he the guy who gave Beowulf such a hard time?/s

Sorry, I hit Post Comment prematurely. What I was going to say is that I know Cruz has said the right thing about some hot button issues and I can understand that this makes him attractive in a time when decent conservative candidates seem as rare as hen's teeth. The thing I don't understand is how Cruz could be a candidate. He was born in Canada. (I think his parents were American citizens working in Calgary at the time.) Doesn't foreign birth disqualify you as a Presidential candidate?

I know that John McCain had some questions raised about his candidacy because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone (long before it was given back to Panama) but that whoever decides these things said that was close enough to being American-born because the Canal Zone was under American administration at the time and was a de facto part of the United States. But how could Cruz qualify? Calgary was NEVER part of the United States.

Is there another exception that allows someone born outside of the US to become a Presidential candidate, perhaps on the basis of his parents' citizenship when he was born?

I have to believe Cruz's birthplace is not a complete surprise to everyone. It's on his Wikipedia page. So how does he quality for a run for the Presidency?

Because his and McShame's parents were/are Americans. AND, should the issue be raised, Obummer being born in Indonesia and not being challenged should dissuade the pinko, commie, unicorn loving progressives from pursuing this non-issue.

Henry, there's some debate about what "natural born" means -- born of American citizens, born on American soil? His mother was American, which means he was an American citizen at birth even though he was born in Canada and spent his first four years there. So he's got a case....

When does it actually get decided if he qualifies as "natural born" and who makes the decision?

I hope that the decision is made fairly early on. It would be absurd to have him elected President and THEN have the person (or department) that makes the decision confront the question for the first time and decide he's not actually American.

It seems to me that a firm decision should be made, at the latest, when each party opens nominations for that party's primaries. It would be a massive waste of time and money for a party to go through the primary process, choose someone and only then find out he's not eligible.

Even deciding as late as the start of the primary cycle seems pretty late in the game. How does a potential candidate raise funds if he doesn't know if he is eligible for office? "Hi, I'm Ted Cruz and I'd like you to support my candidacy for Presidential nominee on the Republican ticket. Of course, I won't find out until much later if I'm actually allowed to serve as president."

as far as I know, the question hasn't actually been adjudicated yet. It's merely been publicly debated. The ultimate authority would be the Supreme Court, but the question wouldn't reach them until someone with standing sued.

Certain individuals born outside of the United States are born citizens because of their parents, according to the principle of jus sanguinis (which holds that the country of citizenship of a child is the same as that of his / her parents). It's a legal principal, much like "executive order".

I read something fairly recently that said that the US and Canada are the ONLY two countries in the world that grant citizenship on the basis of birth; in other words, if you are born in the US, you are an American regardless of your parents' citizenship. The same applies to Canada. Unless there is some loophole or exception that I don't know about, Cruz was automatically a Canadian citizen at birth. When he was born, the US didn't allow dual citizenships so he couldn't have even had a dual citizenship in those days. Now however, I believe the US allows dual citizenships so perhaps he has both US and Canadian citizenship or has renounced his Canadian citizenship? Would dual citizenship be an obstacle to a presidential run?

I have to believe that voters would not be happy about someone perceived to have divided loyalties, although I don't imagine most Americans see Canada as an enemy. It would be a different story if Cruz had a dual citizenship with North Korea.....

The term is Jus Soli. Just Soil....just being born in a nations territory grants citizenship. Ireland recently amended it's constitution to remove Jus Soli and several other notable countries recently did as well.

If there was any serious proposal to lookout for the best interests of the American citizenry in any of this Comprehensive Immigration Reform farce, then repeal of Jus Soli would be in the mix. But alas...it's all a charade.

I just saw a statistic the other day that said 76% of American families are living paycheck to paycheck.

When will the Ed Rendell types of America get it through their thick skulls that the American taxpayer is tapped out, and the only legitimate solution is to not just dither with "entitlements" but to cut all of government?

It has already passed through their thick skulls. However, the mental disease; cognitive dissonance precludes ascertaining, incorporating and/or utilizing facts to overcome zealotry. And, have you heard the cliche, lies, damn lies and statistics? It's really 86%, based on interviewing my parents, sprinkling pixie dust on their answers which formulated a proctology model, similar to the global warming models, that extrapolated the data to the entire USA and South Dakota.